Supreme Court Asks Mahua Moitra To Approach SEBI With Demand For Public Disclosure Of Alternative Investment Funds & Foreign Portfolio Investors

The Supreme Court today(April) disposed of a writ petition filed by Mahua Moitra, Member of Parliament, seeking directions to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to mandate public disclosure norms for Foreign Portfolio Investors and Alternative Investment Funds.

The Court allowed the Trinamool Congress member to make a detailed representation to SEBI ventilating her grievances.  Once such representation is made, it may be considered in accordance with law, the Court directed.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the petitioner before a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma. He submitted that "10 lac crores" are under the control of the Foreign Portfolio Investors and Alternative Investment Funds.

"While the Regulations of SEBI require Mutual Funds and other investors to disclose who are these investing, in which companies they are investing, so far as these two categories are concerned, no disclosures are required. Recently, the SEBI said, if your assets under management are above 50,000 crores, then you have to disclose who are these people to us. But not to the general public, there is no public disclosure. But no disclosure to anybody below 50,000 crores. The result is non-regulation and non-disclosure is leading to five kinds of problem....," Bhushan averred. 

Before he could further complete, Justice Nagarathna asked if any representation had been made to SEBI in this regard.

"The rapid expansion of AIFs and FPIs in India's financial markets has given rise to serious transparency concerns. Unlike Mutual funds, which are subject to stringent public disclosure norms, AIFs and FPIs operate under opaque structures, raising risks of market manipulation, money laundering and tax evasion," the petition states.

Bhushan responded that SEBI has justified this on grounds that it would infringe the privacy if public disclosure is made and therefore, no specific representation has been made to them. 

Justice Nagarathna responded: "You have come directly with the PIL. File a representation. There is no opportunity to apply their mind to the grievance you have raised."

Bhushan stated that the issue is creating great havoc in the financial market but agreed to make a representation to SEBI. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of. Justice Nagarathna orally added that if SEBI does not respond to the representation, the petitioner can seek a mandamus.

Case Details: MAHUA MOITRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.| W.P.(C) No. 239/2025 

Click Here To Read Order